Miscast? Nobody, really; some characterizations could use a bit of work, but all the actors delivered on the material they were given. I'm not sold on Ezra's Barry yet, but he had, like, 2 lines, I can't judge.

__________________TGrG- Ramblings on pop-culture. Also, some reviews.TCA- A small community dedicated to the world of the Transformers. *** We're trying to launch our RPG and we need more players***

Chris Evans is just a solid actor as well. Same goes for Chris Pratt. They're not winning any Oscars anytime soon.

Chris Pratt and Evans are movie-stars because of their charisma. It's not always about pure acting talent

Quote:

Is this a definitive statement that all CW actors couldn't act on high-caliber, award-winning TVshows? Because this is not true at all, since Jimmy Sheridan (Arrow's Robert Queen) and Navid Negahban (Arrow's Al-Owal) both play major roles on Homeland and had no problem acting on the CW. Does it stand to reason that some CW actors can't act that well? Yes. But dismissing anyone who acts on the CW is not the way to go.

The better actors on Flash and Arrow are obvious. Tom Cavanagh owns the screen. Jesse Martin is another one. Grant Gustin does a servicable job, but Ezra Miller has been stellar in things like Perks of Being a Wallflower, Let's Talk About Kevin, and Stanford Prison Experiment

Quote:

Now this is a very articulate argument. Anyway, isn't that the fault of the suit instead of Gustin's?

Please don't take this as just a defense of Gustin's inclusion on DC's movie slate. It's not, since I don't even keep up with his show (though I would rather have him than Miller). I just think this was not a strong argument against his casting.

He's too skinny. He would look ridiculous next to the rest of the Justice League. At least Miller has committed to bulking up and defining his body. Also, i'm not asking the Flash to look Like Supes or something, but muscle definition is important. Flash should look like a sprinter like Usain Bolt. Not a Kenyan marathon runner.

I supported his casting from the moment it was announced, and the fact it was even remotely "controversial" is exactly why I ignore fandom especially when they get into hissy fits over casting without ever giving the candidate a chance at face-value. He was literally coming off Argo, my favorite film of 2012 where he not only directed and produced with such expertise but also gave a career-best performance in the lead.

So I wasn't "ready to believe," I was automatically convinced. But... I didn't buy him as a Bruce Wayne in his late 40s/early 50s whose cynical, beat down and hard-assed having spent 20-odd years secretly fighting crime in the criminal underworld of Gotham.

Adding stumble and putting grey in his hair doesn't automatically add layers to the performance I'm afraid. You have to see it in his face and he was just too baby-faced for what they were going for. Had they gone for closer to Keaton, a la a Bruce Wayne/Bats experienced and a couple of years into it, which is what I thought they were going for, sure he would have rocked it for me.

He's getting way overpraised here and even getting credit for doing things "for the first time onscreen" which isn't remotely true, like doing detective work and his body-movement.

If he's your cup of coffee, all power to you. But for me he was miscast for what they were specifically going for in this iteration of Batman.

I supported his casting from the moment it was announced, and the fact it was even remotely "controversial" is exactly why I ignore fandom especially when they get into hissy fits over casting without ever giving the candidate a chance at face-value. He was literally coming off Argo, my favorite film of 2012 where he not only directed and produced with such expertise but also gave a career-best performance in the lead.

So I wasn't "ready to believe," I was automatically convinced. But... I didn't buy him as a Bruce Wayne in his late 40s/early 50s whose cynical, beat down and hard-assed having spent 20-odd years secretly fighting crime in the criminal underworld of Gotham.

Adding stumble and putting grey in his hair doesn't automatically add layers to the performance I'm afraid. You have to see it in his face and he was just too baby-faced for what they were going for. Had they gone for closer to Keaton, a la a Bruce Wayne/Bats experienced and a couple of years into it, which is what I thought they were going for, sure he would have rocked it for me.

He's getting way overpraised here and even getting credit for doing things "for the first time onscreen" which isn't remotely true, like doing detective work and his body-movement.

If he's your cup of coffee, all power to you. But for me he was miscast for what they were specifically going for in this iteration of Batman.

Here here. I still believe we could see a lot more from him, and I think he gave the best performance he could with what he had. Nothing in this movie, however, convinced me he was Bruce Wayne/Batman and not Ben Affleck playing Bruce Wayne/Batman. For all the criticism Bale received for his Batman voice, no one suspected (especially with Batman Begins) that he wasn't truly becoming the character.

I supported his casting from the moment it was announced, and the fact it was even remotely "controversial" is exactly why I ignore fandom especially when they get into hissy fits over casting without ever giving the candidate a chance at face-value. He was literally coming off Argo, my favorite film of 2012 where he not only directed and produced with such expertise but also gave a career-best performance in the lead.

So I wasn't "ready to believe," I was automatically convinced. But... I didn't buy him as a Bruce Wayne in his late 40s/early 50s whose cynical, beat down and hard-assed having spent 20-odd years secretly fighting crime in the criminal underworld of Gotham.

Adding stumble and putting grey in his hair doesn't automatically add layers to the performance I'm afraid. You have to see it in his face and he was just too baby-faced for what they were going for. Had they gone for closer to Keaton, a la a Bruce Wayne/Bats experienced and a couple of years into it, which is what I thought they were going for, sure he would have rocked it for me.

He's getting way overpraised here and even getting credit for doing things "for the first time onscreen" which isn't remotely true, like doing detective work and his body-movement.

If he's your cup of coffee, all power to you. But for me he was miscast for what they were specifically going for in this iteration of Batman.

I supported his casting from the moment it was announced, and the fact it was even remotely "controversial" is exactly why I ignore fandom especially when they get into hissy fits over casting without ever giving the candidate a chance at face-value. He was literally coming off Argo, my favorite film of 2012 where he not only directed and produced with such expertise but also gave a career-best performance in the lead.

So I wasn't "ready to believe," I was automatically convinced. But... I didn't buy him as a Bruce Wayne in his late 40s/early 50s whose cynical, beat down and hard-assed having spent 20-odd years secretly fighting crime in the criminal underworld of Gotham.

Adding stumble and putting grey in his hair doesn't automatically add layers to the performance I'm afraid. You have to see it in his face and he was just too baby-faced for what they were going for. Had they gone for closer to Keaton, a la a Bruce Wayne/Bats experienced and a couple of years into it, which is what I thought they were going for, sure he would have rocked it for me.

He's getting way overpraised here and even getting credit for doing things "for the first time onscreen" which isn't remotely true, like doing detective work and his body-movement.

If he's your cup of coffee, all power to you. But for me he was miscast for what they were specifically going for in this iteration of Batman.

Interesting. Keaton was a "stretch" for...even at the time. I enjoyed the movie as entertainment but "believing him" as Batman !...no way.

I agree Affleck can be a bit baby faced but it worked OK for BvS, they were careful how they let him express. At least he had an imposing size this time round...

__________________
The pinch of salt my posts should be taken with. ..::.SUPERMANIA BEGINShttp://soupermanshh.deviantart.com/No-one stays good in this world...everything's changed...if you seek his monument - look around you - ARGO pick your nits ! I DON'T GET WHY PEOPLE DON'T GET IT...

Everyone has there own opinion and all that but I'm surprised at how someone thought that about Affleck. I will admit there were moments where he didn't sell it but there were far more where he did IMO.

Even though I disliked the Martha scene I thought he was fantastic in it.

__________________The above is MY OPINION and ONLY my opinion please do not think of it as fact or a statement of fact it is merely what I feel.

What was wrong with Lawrence as Perry? I thought he played the role excellently. He was witty and sarcastic without being a clown like J. Jonah (though I do love me some J.K. Simmons JJJ). Appearance aside, I don't think that we could have gotten a better Perry.

As for miscasting, I agree about Eisenberg, but the rest of the cast did really well with some pleasant surprises like Gal as WW.

I was pretty happy with the casting in general, bar Tao Okamoto as Mercy Graves. Not that she did anything wrong, but I felt they should have gone with a lesser known actress as she was kinda wasted in such an inconsequential role.

__________________
I'm not saying I'm Batman. I'm just saying .......................... no-one has ever seen me and Batman in a room together.

Chris Pratt and Evans are movie-stars because of their charisma. It's not always about pure acting talent

And that is precisely the argument people make for Gustin. That he is a solid actor, on par with Pratt and co., and that he oozes charisma. Which he does.

Quote:

Grant Gustin does a servicable job, but Ezra Miller has been stellar in things like Perks of Being a Wallflower, Let's Talk About Kevin, and Stanford Prison Experiment

He has. And all of those roles play to his strengths as either a sinister, creepy, or antagonistic character. In none of them does he prove he could be charming enough to pull off a leading man role, which is why people have a problem with him.

Quote:

He's too skinny. He would look ridiculous next to the rest of the Justice League.He's too skinny. He would look ridiculous next to the rest of the Justice League. At least Miller has committed to bulking up and defining his body.

What makes you think Gustin wouldn't be committed if the director required him to bulk up? Besides, let's not pretend he doesn't look fine, because he does.

3. Ezra Miller as The Flash: The Flash is all about charm, and Miller is this giant charisma black hole. He is downright sinister in every single performance I have seen of him, which does not fit Barry at all.

lol what?!? I take it you've only seen him in "we need to talk about kevin". Not sure how playing a gay teenager who gets bullied and is funny in "Perks of Being a Wallflower" is sinister.

Mine isn't a Gustin vs Miller thing - I just don't like Miller's look or voice.

I'm not in this advocating for Gustin's inclusion in the cinematic universe either. In fact, I was adamant that they should keep the cinematic and television universes separate. I am just saying that given the choice between Miller and Gustin, I would go with Gustin.

I like Miller, just not for The Flash. Much in the same way that I like Steve Buscemi a lot, but I would never want him to play Batman (though it would be hilarious).